Tom McClintock (R-CA)
Proven Forest Management Act of 2025
A Republican bill with 7 Republican cosponsors · See all 8 cosponsors
Last activity — Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-430, Part I.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The ``Proven Forest Management Act of 2025'' directs the Secretary concerned to coordinate with impacted parties during forest management on National Forest System land. The bill requires management activities to aim for multiple ecosystem benefits, such as reducing forest fuels and maintaining biological diversity, unless costs are excessive. It also mandates that the Secretary establish ground condition criteria and monitoring for ground disturbances. Additionally, the act provides a categorical exclusion from National Environmental Policy Act requirements for fuel reduction activities under 10,000 acres that meet specific coordination and consistency standards. Finally, it allows for cooperative agreements with qualified entities for various land management tasks.
Yes
- Scored +5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill mandates management activities that reduce forest fuels, maintain biological diversity, and improve water quality.
- Scored +4
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The bill requires coordination with local government representatives such as county supervisors, benefiting rural community input.
- Scored +3
Does this invest in rural communities?
The bill encourages coordination with local governments and entities for forest management activities often central to rural areas.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Efficiency and Compatibility: The Secretary is directed to coordinate with impacted parties to increase efficiency and maximize the compatibility of management practices across National Forest System land (Section 2(a)).
-
Ecosystem Benefits: Forest management activities are intended to reduce forest fuels, maintain biological diversity, improve wetland and water quality, and increase resilience to changing water temperature and precipitation (Section 2(b)(1)).
-
Ground Condition Oversight: The Secretary must establish post-program ground condition criteria and provide monitoring to ensure relevant conditions are attained (Section 2(c)).
-
Collaborative Management: The bill allows the Secretary to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with qualified entities for activities like fuel reduction, erosion control, and reforestation (Section 2(e)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Cost Exceptions for Ecosystem Benefits: The requirement to attain multiple ecosystem benefits may not apply if the Secretary determines the associated costs are excessive (Section 2(b)(2)).
-
Reduced Environmental Review: Forest management activities for reducing forest fuels that do not exceed 10,000 acres (including up to 3,000 acres of mechanical thinning) are categorically excluded from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Section 2(d)(1)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill mandates management activities that reduce forest fuels, maintain biological diversity, and improve water quality. Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill encourages coordination with local governments and entities for forest management activities often central to rural areas.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill requires coordination with local government representatives such as county supervisors, benefiting rural community input.
- 1/8/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-430, Part I.
- 7/23/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 15.
- 4/4/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
- 1/13/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/9/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/7/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/3/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Ken CalvertRepublican · California
Darrell IssaRepublican · California
Kevin KileyIndependent · California
Doug LaMalfaRepublican · California
Jay ObernolteRepublican · California
Pete StauberRepublican · Minnesota
David ValadaoRepublican · California
Ryan ZinkeRepublican · Montana